Siman 330

The Rambam wrote in chapter 2, law 11: "A woman in labor when she kneels to give birth is in a state of danger to life, and one desecrates the Shabbat for her. One calls a midwife for her from place to place, and one cuts the umbilical cord and ties it. And if she required a lamp at the time she cries out in her birth pangs, one kindles the lamp for her, and even if she were blind, because her mind is set at ease by the lamp even though she does not see. And if she required oil and the like, one brings it to her, and anything that can be changed, one changes at the time of bringing, such as her friend bringing her a vessel hanging from her hair, and if it is not possible, she brings it in her usual manner." Thus far his words.

Explanation of his words: For even though regarding any dangerously ill person we do not require conditions as to whether he needs a lamp, as the Rambam himself wrote at the beginning of chapter 2 where he wrote: "And one lights a lamp for him and extinguishes a lamp for him," and he did not write "if he needs," and likewise he did not write there that if it is possible to deviate one deviates. And the matter is thus: For even though when she crouches to give birth she is in danger, nevertheless she is not similar to a standard dangerously ill person, because this is the nature of the world and the essence of creation is such and we are not afraid of this. And she also is not in fear, and most women endure the labor pains with composure, knowing that in a little while they will pass as she saw with her mother, and therefore truly before the birth there is no desecration of Shabbat at all for most women. And for this the Rambam says: "If she needs a lamp," and such is the wording of the Gemara (128b) see there, meaning when we see that she is afraid and anxious more than all women, and then it is necessary to light the lamp for her and even if she is blind, so that she will be confident that they are looking at her and doing for her everything she needs, for if not so, the fear itself will harm her. And therefore also regarding bringing the oil, when it is possible to do so by means of a deviation one does so, since truly there is no need for this except because of her fear. And why did he not also write: 'one extinguishes the lamp for her' as with illness, because with a sick person there are those who need to sleep and the light should not disturb him, which is not the case for a woman when she crouches to give birth, for it is not a time of sleep and there is never a need to extinguish the lamp for her sake. However, if an incident occurred where she needs it – one does so. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote plainly: 'one lights the lamp for her' and it is not like the wording of the Shas, and nevertheless their intention is also thus as I have written (and according to what I have written the two difficulties of the Magen Avraham subsection 2 are answered, see there and examine carefully).

Pious men and men of action, when a woman reaches the ninth month, prepare on the eve of Shabbat everything that is needed, so that perhaps if she should kneel to give birth on Shabbat, they will not need to desecrate Shabbat (ibid. subsection 1 in the name of Sefer Chasidim). And for an Egyptian woman, one does not deliver her child on Shabbat even in a matter that involves no desecration of Shabbat, and she calls to her fellow Egyptian woman to do on her behalf what is needed (see Magen Avraham subsection 5 and subsection 6, and it is impossible to explain more regarding this).

From what point is she called a woman in childbirth such that it is permitted to desecrate the Shabbat for her when she needs it: from when she sits on the birthing stool, which is when labor pains and pangs have seized her, or from the time that blood descends and flows from her, or from the time that her friends carry her by her arms because she does not have the strength to walk; once one of these things appears—we desecrate the Shabbat for her when she needs it. And this is regarding other matters, that if she will need them we can do them immediately, but to call a wise woman, the midwife—it is permitted even before these times; rather, from the time she feels a little, it is permitted to call her even from outside the techum, for if she will need her, we will not reach her in an instant (Taz subsection 2).

And after she has given birth, she is considered completely in danger until three days have passed, and one is obligated to do for her everything that is done for her on a weekday without any delay and with alacrity and by the great men of Israel, according to everything that has been explained in siman 328 regarding a person whose illness involves danger. And one cooks for her what she needs and heats hot water for her and cleans her, everything as on a weekday, and one does not ask about this neither of a doctor nor of the woman who gave birth. And even if she says that she does not need to desecrate the Shabbat for her—we do not listen to her and we desecrate it, and similarly if the doctor says she does not need it—one should not listen to his words and he is a worthless doctor, and thus the sages decreed that for all the first three days the woman who gave birth is in danger and one desecrates the Shabbat for her. And this is the opinion of the She'iltot, and it appears so from the Rambam who wrote: "Whether she said she needs it or whether she said she does not need it," and such is the wording of the Shas. And since we do not listen to her, the same law applies that we do not listen to a doctor or to anyone who says it is not needed. But the Ramban disagrees on this, and he holds that if the doctor and the midwife say she does not need it, and she herself also says so—one does not desecrate it, for there are many women who give birth who do not need hot water and suffice with cold. But if one of them says she needs it or the women at her side say she needs it—one pays no heed to those who say she does not need it and one desecrates the Shabbat for her, and even if we see that she eats like other people, we say that she does not feel it at the moment (Magen Avraham, subsection 8). And in practice it appears that Heaven forbid one should be stringent in this, and if one sees even any slight doubt that she needs it—one desecrates the Shabbat for her with alacrity (and see Rashi 129a, s.v. 'bein' and examine it closely).

And from three until seven days, it is stated in the Gemara (129a): "If she said: 'I need,' we desecrate [the Shabbat]; if she said: 'I do not need,' we do not desecrate." And in an ordinary case, the Rambam and the Tur wrote that we desecrate, see there, for she is still a choleh she-yesh bo sakanah, and all the more so when a doctor says she needs. And there is one who wrote that if her friends say she needs, it is nothing (Magen Avraham subsection 9) when she says she does not need, and I saw one who disagreed on this (the Ha-Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger). And so it appears to me, for women are more expert in this matter, and let it be no more than a doubt, and Heaven forbid to be stringent in a doubt of pikuach nefesh. And from seven until thirty days, her status is like a choleh she-ein bo sakanah, and we do not desecrate Shabbat for her ourselves unless a sickness developed in her, for then her status is like all sicknesses. And there are women of weak strength whose danger continues for a long time, and this depends either on herself or on a doctor, according to the law that was explained in siman 328.

It is a simple matter that the three, seven, and thirty days are calculated from the time of birth and not from the sitting on the birth-stool, as the Rambam wrote there, and this is his wording: "A woman in labor, from when the blood begins to flow until she gives birth, and after she gives birth until three days—one desecrates etc." Thus far his words. And I have seen one who wished to say that this is the explanation: that it refers back to the beginning, meaning from when the blood begins and after she gives birth until three days from the flowing of the blood (M.B.). Heaven forbid saying such a thing and being stringent regarding the saving of a life (and so wrote the Lechem Mishneh), and it is explicitly stated so in the Bartenura at the end of chapter 18, and this is his wording: "From the time she sits on the birth-stool and the blood begins to flow until all three days after she has given birth etc." Thus far his words. And that which the Rambam wrote in the Commentary on the Mishnah, this is his wording: "But one does not begin the desecration of Shabbat until she sits on the birth-stool and the blood begins to flow, and from that hour until the completion of three days one desecrates etc." Thus far his words, this is also its explanation: until the completion of three days after the birth, for if his intention was three days from that hour, what is this phrasing of "until the completion," and he should have said "and from that hour three days," but it is certainly as I have written, and because it is a simple matter he did not see fit to clarify this, and on the contrary, he wrote this to indicate that the three days are separate from that which is prior to the birth from the time of the birth-stool.

One who is sitting on the birthstool and died—one brings a knife on Shabbat, even through a public domain, and they tear open her womb and remove the fetus, perhaps it will be found alive. And even though the fetus does not yet have a presumption of life—one profanes the Shabbat for it even for a doubt. And some say specifically when she is sitting on the birthstool, for the fetus has already uprooted, for then there is reason to doubt that perhaps it is alive; but before this, when she died—one does not profane the Shabbat, because it is certain that it has already died. And some say there is no distinction (see Magen Avraham subsection 10 for the two opinions). However, for the law for us, there is no practical difference in this, because even on a weekday we do not do so, for the reason that we are not experts in the death of the mother in close proximity to the death, and certain death for us lasts a long time after she has truly already died, and automatically the fetus has already died. And for us, the custom with every pregnant woman when she dies is to exert every effort so that the fetus shall exit from her, and we do not know the reason for the matter, and the masses hold this to be a necessity.

"One may make a fire for a woman who has given birth for all thirty days, even during the Tammuz season," this is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 6; see there. But the wording of the Gemara there is: "One may make a fire for a woman who has given birth on Shabbat etc.," and so it is also in the Rambam there, and this is his wording: "One may make a fire for a woman who has given birth even in the summer months, because the cold is very difficult for a woman who has given birth in cold places. But one may not make a fire for a sick person to warm himself with etc." Thus far his words. And the Tur wrote: "One may make a fire for a woman who has given birth or for another sick person… and even during the Tammuz season." Thus far his words. And even though the thirty days were not mentioned in the Gemara, nevertheless it was certain to our teacher, the Beit Yosef, that it is thirty days, for all thirty days she is called a woman who has given birth, for if not so, what is the novelty? And so wrote the Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Ra'avad; see there. And it is obvious that the intention is even by an Israelite, because regarding cold she is in danger for all thirty days, for if it were by a non-Jew, what is the novelty? Behold, regarding any sick person who is not in danger, one tells a non-Jew and he performs it. And although one could say that it comes to teach us that it is permitted by a non-Jew, and we do not say that it is possible to wrap her in clothes and it will be warm for her, and we would not permit it for her even by a non-Jew—this is no reasoning at all, for it is a simple matter that for a sick person who is not in danger, whatever is seen to be good for him is permitted by a non-Jew. And that which the Rambam wrote: "that the cold is difficult for her in cold places," his intention is not that it is only permitted in cold places, for behold the Shas permitted even during the Tammuz season, but rather he is stating the reality, that in cold places the cold is very difficult for her as we see with our senses, and therefore automatically when she has become chilled in any place whatsoever and at any time whatsoever—it is permitted to desecrate Shabbat for her, since we see that the cold is very difficult for her. (And he did not employ the wording "Tammuz season" because in the Gemara it is regarding bloodletting, see there, and regarding a woman who has given birth they used the wording "in the summer months," and regarding bloodletting he wrote the wording "Tammuz season," see there, and the Tur was not concerned with this since it is all one).

Regarding the dispute of the Tur with the Rambam concerning a sick person, for the Rambam forbids making a fire for a sick person, and his reasoning is because it is possible to use pillows and blankets, but a woman in childbirth, due to her weakness, cannot endure this. The Tur permitted it even for a sick person, and this is the opinion of the Rif and the Rosh, and the dispute depends on the sugya of the Shas there and variant readings, as written in the Maggid Mishneh and the Beit Yosef. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, did not mention anything of this, for in siman 328 he wrote only: "One who let blood and became chilled—they make a fire for him," see there, and not regarding a sick person, because his opinion inclines toward the opinion of the Tur, yet he did not wish to rule against the Rambam, therefore he omitted this. Also, regarding the primary law, it is weak in his hand, as he wrote in his great work, that there is a doubt as to what we are dealing with: whether a sick person whose life is in danger or one whose life is not in danger, and therefore he did not mention this at all. Regarding the law: it seems proper to do this through a non-Jew. And when they made a fire for a woman in childbirth or for a sick person, whether healthy people are permitted to warm themselves before it, it was explained in siman 276 that it is permitted, and when the cold is great, one tells a non-Jew at the outset to light the oven on Shabbat, for everyone is considered sick in the presence of cold, as was written there.

The Holy One, Blessed be He, rebuked Israel through Ezekiel the prophet (16) and said: "And as for your birth, on the day you were born your navel cord was not cut, nor were you washed in water to be cleansed; you were not salted at all, nor swaddled at all." It is explained from this that there is pain for the infant if all these are not done for him, and therefore, because of the pain of the infant, the sages permitted doing this for the infant on Shabbat, since there are no Torah-prohibited labors involved, but rather shevutim and weekday activities. This is what they said at the end of the chapter "Mifanin": "'And as for your birth, on the day you were born' — from here we learn that we deliver the newborn on Shabbat; 'your navel cord was not cut' — from here we learn that we cut the umbilical cord on Shabbat; 'nor were you washed in water to be cleansed' — from here we learn that we wash the newborn on Shabbat; 'you were not salted at all' — from here we learn that we salt the newborn on Shabbat, for through salting his flesh hardens (Rashi); 'nor swaddled at all' — from here we learn that we wrap the newborn on Shabbat, meaning that we wrap him in belts and bandages (ibid.), and in our language it is called 'vicklen.' And so too we hide the afterbirth so that the newborn will be warm, and this is by way of segulah, for hiding the afterbirth brings the newborn to warmth; and on a weekday they would hide them in the earth, but on Shabbat it is forbidden, of course, and it was their custom to hide it on Shabbat in wool or in flocking or in straw.

And behold, the Rambam wrote: "Because it is a danger to him if they do not do all these for him," see there. According to this, if it is necessary for this to also perform a melakhah de-oraita, such as bringing a knife through a reshut ha-rabbim or the like—it is also permitted. However, the Tosafot at the end of the chapter "Mifanin" wrote that this is nothing more than mere pain, and only melakhot de-rabbanan were permitted for this, for in all those that he enumerated there are no de-oraita, see there. And it appears to me regarding the law: since the Rambam wrote that it is a danger, even though the Tosafot disagree with him, there is a doubt of danger that perhaps the halakhah is like the Rambam, and in every doubt of danger it is permitted to desecrate Shabbat. Therefore, if these things require a melakhah de-oraita—they should be done by a non-Jew, and if it is impossible—they should do it themselves, for in a doubt regarding lives one is lenient (so it appears in my humble opinion).

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 7: "And these words apply to one born at seven or nine months, but one born at eight months or a doubt whether he is a seven-month child or an eight-month child—one does not profane the Sabbath for him unless his hair and nails are completed." Thus far their words. And without this, we establish him as a nefel, and even in a case of doubt one does not profane the Sabbath. Even though for any doubt regarding pikuach nefesh one profanes the Sabbath, and even for one who does not have a presumption of life, such as for a fetus in section 8 to bring a knife through a public domain, nevertheless here one does not profane the Sabbath, because a defect is visible in him in that his hair and nails were not completed, and he appears clearly as a nefel (Magen Avraham, subsection 15). And there is one who says that in section 8 we specifically require knowing that his months were completed (ibid.), and it is a matter of wonder, for at the end of the first chapter of Arachin it is taught regarding this law: "she sat on the birthstool," and would she not sit on the birthstool without her months being completed? Therefore, it appears as I have written, that in a place of doubt where there is a defect in the essence of the newborn—certainly we do not profane the Sabbath.

An infant born at eight months certainly, or a doubtfully seven-month or eight-month-old whose hair and nails are not fully formed—it is forbidden to move him because of muktzeh, but his mother may lean over him to nurse him, because of the pain of the milk that causes her distress when the breasts are full, and she herself may also express by hand the milk that causes her distress. And even though one who milks is liable because of mifarek, this is when the milk does not go to waste, but when it goes to waste it is only a rabbinic prohibition, and they did not decree in a case of pain. And all the more so according to most of the poskim that a labor not needed for its own sake is exempt, as in the case of one who lances an abscess, where they did not decree in a case of pain.

And one may straighten the limbs of the newborn that were dislocated due to the pain of birth, and specifically on the first day, but afterwards—it is forbidden (Tur), because it appears like building (Magen Avraham subsection 18), for it is sufficient that they straighten him on the first day, and if it became distorted afterwards, there is no concern of danger if they wait until the night, as the Rambam wrote in chapter 22, law 26, that one may not set the vertebrae of the spine of a minor one next to the other because it appears like building. Thus far his words. And I did not find in the Rambam in chapter 2 that it is permitted on the day of birth, and in his opinion even on the day of birth it is forbidden, because there is no concern in this. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch learned this law from that which we say at the beginning of the chapter "Kol HaKeilim": "Straightening a child—Rav Sheshet permits," and Rashi and Tosafot explained that this is to straighten his limbs, see there, and therefore they were forced to distinguish between the day of birth and afterwards, as Tosafot wrote there. But the Rambam, it seems to me, would explain according to the explanation of the Aruch, and this is the law that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 11: that if the uvula of the newborn fell—it is permitted to put a finger into his mouth and return the uvula to its place, even though he sometimes vomits. Thus far his words. And therefore according to the Rambam, straightening the limbs—even on the day of his birth is forbidden. And it is permitted to wrap the newborn in garments so that his limbs do not become crooked and to settle his limbs and straighten them, for that is the normal way and it is like feeding him and giving him drink, but regarding the vertebrae of the spine—it is forbidden even by means of wrapping garments (Bach). And know that regarding that which was explained in the previous section that a doubtful seven-month-old is forbidden to be moved, there are those who permit moving all doubtful cases and such is the custom (Magen Avraham subsection 16 in the name of the Agudah), and such is the implication of the Shas and the poskim (ibid.), for one should not be stringent regarding the moving of human muktzeh due to doubt, unless it is known that he is certainly a miscarriage, such as if he had intercourse and withdrew, but in a case of doubt—one may move him (ibid.).